Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Caliphate of Ali
As I was reading through "The Caliphate of Ali", a passage on the topic of revenge interested me. Ali is attempting to remove 'Uthman's leaders when he encounters a problem in Syria. The governor of Syria, Mu'awiya, is a powerful leader with high local support and a military. Mu'awiya "had a moral claim against the murderers of the caliph; as the nearest survivng relative of the dead man, he had a right, even a duty, to see vengeance for the wrong done to his clan. Historians have tended to treat this claim as a feeble pretext for his actions but this does not, perhaps do justice to Mu'awiya's position" (Pg. 76). Do you think Mu'awiya's moral claim to vengeance is ethical in the Islamic sense? Do you feel Mu'awiya has more of a right to be the caliph than Ali?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I don't agree with the way that Mu awiya came to the throne or as the next caliph. He took Ali's life to take the throne. I don't see how this could be seen as good in the Qur'an. There is an argument that Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman were related to Muhammad through marriage where as Mu awiya's father was also related to Muhammad through marriage. His father was blind so he was not suited for the throne. SO there is an argument that Mu awiya could rightfully be king. If he was rightfully king then why did he go and have the descendents of Ali masacred?
I don't really think that there is more or less of a claim to be caliph, although Mu awiya does make a strong case. I think in this particular time, most conflicts were solved with eye for an eye logic, which is basically what this is, in the addition to gaining a position of power. I think there is an argument both ways for Mu awiya to be king, and on the topic of revenge, I think the approach he took was rather suitable, given the laws proposed and the time period they were living in. Most people fought to live up to a family name or to defend something, and most people sought revenge if what they loved was harmed.
I think it is clearly stated that Ali did not take any part of Uthman murder; moreover, Ali was the legal Caliphate (ruler) for the whole Islamic area , therefore Ali has the right to remove leaders of Islamic regions and appoint other besides Ali was highly known for his knowledge and fairness I think Mouaya was wrong not to follow the legal Caliphate " Ali" instructions.
I think it is clearly stated that Ali did not take any part of Uthman murder; moreover, Ali was the legal Caliphate (ruler) for the whole Islamic area , therefore Ali has the right to remove leaders of Islamic regions and appoint other besides Ali was highly known for his knowledge and fairness I think Mouaya was wrong not to follow the legal Caliphate " Ali" instructions.
This doesn't have anything to do with the following comments but I was just wondering if the Sunni and the Shi'i rather have their communities seperated or be combined?
I also don't understand how this could be looked at positively in the eyes of Muslims or in the Qur'an. It looks like a very greedy act. But when jealous and greed take over a person, they can do outrageous things that they would never do before.
Even though Ali did not take a direct part in the murders, he was involved and the reason for the murders. Yes i actually do believe Mu'awiya's had a moral claim to vengance as the closest kin too Uthman,When a family member who you are close to is killed, anybody would want justice, especially when in your eyes he was clearly killed unjustly, becauese you must remember this was a political killing. Whether it is moral in the Islamic sense is the question. Islam is against clearly against unjustified murder, but during these times the entire question was if the murder was unjustifiable. But Islam does not have a "turn the other cheek" policy on forgiveness, though it activly encourages forgivness. Islam has outlied guidlines of when punishiment for murder is acceptable..the only question really is whether it is acceptble in this case then. As for Mu'awiya having more of a right to be the caliph..no i dont bellieve he does have the right just because he took vengance on his kins death to be caliph. and a deeper question is if any one of them had a right to be caliph from the start.
Post a Comment